Hall: The Walls method

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by TheMase
...

So... what are you trying to say?

[TheMase]

Originally posted by mocaholic
So... what are you trying to say?

You be the first player to the ball and the free kicks will follow.

If you are consistantly second to the ball (like we currently are) the odds of infringing the player are much greater, aren't they?

Stop blaming the umpires and look at the teams faults, we are doing it all wrong...

[Sanecow]

I don't know, I saw some:

1. Sydney first to the ball
2. tackled instantly
3. holding the ball

decisions too.

[Lucky Knickers]

Isn' t the Walls method to put Baz in the centre of a circle and have the players all have a go at beating him up?

Unfortunately, that would probably backfire and Baz would be the only one standing.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by TheMase
You be the first player to the ball and the free kicks will follow.

If you are consistantly second to the ball (like we currently are) the odds of infringing the player are much greater, aren't they?

Stop blaming the umpires and look at the teams faults, we are doing it all wrong...

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic however without lovely smilies this is hard to do. Not that I use smilies anyway.

For the record I generally agree with you.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I don't know, I saw some:

1. Sydney first to the ball
2. tackled instantly
3. holding the ball

decisions too.

We were on the wrong end of a lot of them - umpires seem to be more willing to pay this against us than against any other side from what I've seen in the first two rounds.

[liz]

Notwithstanding whether we're getting a raw deal, there were some frees paid yesterday - to both sides - that had me wondering about where the game is going.

Two examples that I can remember.

1 This one went against us and led to a shot on goal for them. Can't recall who the players were but it was a one on one fast lead sometime in the second half, with the Port player in front but his Sydney opponent right on his tail. Both ran too far under the flight of the ball and it went sailing over their heads quite comfortably. When the Port player realised this was going to happen- but too late to really do anything about it - he tried to stop and prop. The Swans defender kept going, with the result that the Port player went to ground. I couldn't see any hands pushing the Port player in the back. It was just a case of the defender making sure his opponent went under the ball and the contact was clearly part of the contest. If this isn't play-on, there is something clearly wrong with our game.

2 This one went in our favour and resulted in a free to Goodes - but on the defensive side of midfield so wasn't that valuable. It was a classic pack mark situation, where a couple of players from each team jumped up to attempt the mark. Goodes was one and was clearly pushed forward by the momentum of one of the
Port players. Sure, he was taken out of the marking contest but only as a part of the Port player genuinely trying to mark (which he did, I believe). Surely, part of the skill of marking in a pack is timing your arrival, leap and hang-time. If you don't get it right, you'll get incidentally nudged in the contest and will get beaten. If that was a "real" free in accordance with what I thought I understood the point of the game to be, then WC should certainly have received a free in the final seconds of the GF.

If a player deliberately takes his opponent out of a marking contest, quite separately from his own attempts to mark or spoil, then sure, it should be a free. But surely, if the contact is incidental to that player's own genuine attempts to contest and so long as there is no head high contact or hands in the back, shouldn't the game just be allowed to go on?

[swans05]

i reckon put wallsy on the ball then absolutely give the ball the biggest boot and watch the wallsy go flying never to be seen again i mean fair dinkum what a drongo he is

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
1 This one went against us and led to a shot on goal for them. Can't recall who the players were but it was a one on one fast lead sometime in the second half, with the Port player in front but his Sydney opponent right on his tail. Both ran too far under the flight of the ball and it went sailing over their heads quite comfortably. When the Port player realised this was going to happen- but too late to really do anything about it - he tried to stop and prop. The Swans defender kept going, with the result that the Port player went to ground. I couldn't see any hands pushing the Port player in the back. It was just a case of the defender making sure his opponent went under the ball and the contact was clearly part of the contest. If this isn't play-on, there is something clearly wrong with our game.

This was against Leo Barry and paid by the man in the white cap! The commentators were very annoyed with that too.

[dimelb]

Last year we were first in hard ball gets. That usually means jumping on the loose/contested ball. As Sanecow said, we do that, the other side jumps on our bloke and we're pinged for holding. On the other hand, the other side is more likely to get a ball up. I think there is something in the notion of the umps' perceptions.

[stevej]

Originally posted by TheMase

WAKE UP SWANS. GET FIRST THE BALL AND YOU WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE UMPIRES.

Rubbish!!! I've seen us 1st to the ball many times and not awarded free kicks. Barry hall is constantly 1st to the ball in marking contests, arms chopped, hands over shoulders, pushed in the back and i think his free kick count this year is a grand total of 1. I've stated in other posts that i believe the umpires have a preconceived idea of how we play and then as soon as a contest is formed, whether we are 1st to the ball or not, we are usually pinged. All of the media have been talking about how the rule changes will affect us and the umpires are going into matches with that in mind.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Umpires make mistakes, they can also be influenced by the home crowd (that's part of the home-town advantage).
After 2005 we should all realise 3 things.
1) It isn't a level playing field, we will dudded by the mainly Victorian umpires (especially away)
and
2) The umpires were just as bad last year as this.
and
3) Despite that the Swans won the flag so it's not an insurmountable problem.

I try to find some consolation in that !